Foreign Affairs Committee on April 26th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We'll get a very quick answer from both.

Go ahead, Mr. Sedra.

[Mark Sedra]

I would say that the $27 billion figure I mentioned did not adequately consider the cost of security, and I agree with you there. That's why, for example, the recent U.S. contribution of $8.6 billion, just in the next couple of years, to rebuild and to sort of jump start the training of the Afghan security forces shows that the original figure was not adequate.

So I imagine that significantly more resources than that will have to be dedicated to the Afghan security sector alone. I feel reluctant to give an overall figure that we'll see. But it will certainly exceed that $27 billion significantly when you take into consideration security sector reform. When you consider the international troop deployments, we're talking about a significantly larger number.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Sedra.

We'll go to Mr. Khan and then Mr. Goldring.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

I don't mean to be bold, but what about me?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Oh, no, no, I'm sorry; I've been away from this for a day.

We will go to Madame Lalonde.

I apologize.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

There's my colleague, too.

Thank you gentlemen. I should point out that I haven't learned anything new today. We have heard from many well-informed experts. My question is directed to Mr. Gilmore, but Mr. Sedra may also wish to respond.

What is happening in Afghanistan is part of a commitment made by NATO. It is one thing to consider all the problems from a NATO and United Nations standpoint, and another when you consider the military, reconstruction, and democracy-building efforts. There seems to be something out of kilter.

We're told that Canada must stay in Afghanistan. I have no problem with Canada continuing to help in reconstruction development efforts. And yet how long has it been since Canadians and Quebeckers started to have serious problems with Canada's involvement? The answer is, since Gen. Hillier himself called for Canada's participation in southern Kandahar which he knew was the most dangerous place of all. I read this in the Globe and Mail, so it must be true.

I suspect that he also had other intentions including ensuring Canada got military equipment with total disregard for the fact that this went against an undertaking made by the former government.

How can one conceive of a partnership within NATO without the possibility of other countries replacing Canada in southern Kandahar, the most dangerous region, in 2009?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madame Lalonde.

Mr. Gilmore.

[Scott Gilmore]

I cannot speak to the motivations of either the previous government's cabinet or the current government's cabinet with regard to choosing Kandahar. I can say, though, as an observer, that it's clear there were many other reasons to go into Kandahar that were equally valid. It was where we were needed. And that's my response to the second point.

To use the analogy of Canada being a fireman who's going into Afghanistan to put out a house that's on fire—the Afghan house—yes, we may be upset that there aren't enough firemen there behind us or willing to come in, or that other fire halls haven't contributed as many trucks, but it would be a moral mistake for us to, in a fit of pique, wrap up our hose while the house was still burning just because the other fire halls hadn't contributed as much as we would have liked in putting out the fire.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Gilmore.

Mr. Sedra.

[Mark Sedra]

I would say this relates to one of the things I was discussing, and that's political will. Certainly there is a need for other NATO member states to make the necessary contributions to this mission, to relieve Canada perhaps in the south, to contribute to the southern mission. Although I don't think Canada should be considering withdrawing its troops from Afghanistan entirely, or from the south entirely, it is clear that other NATO member states will have to start pulling their weight.

This is a political issue that NATO has been grappling with for the entire mission. In my opinion, it's going to be a test case for the viability and the future of NATO as a whole.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Sedra.

Madame Lalonde, you still have a couple of minutes.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Thank you. Now, as far as Pakistan is concerned we both agreed [Editor's note: technical difficulties] which will decide whether the violence is quelled or not. You're both counting on the fact that the Taliban will not have as great an impact, even if it doesn't occur at the same pace.

By the same token, other experts have told us that we need to factor in what is going to happen in Iraq. If the Americans withdraw from Iraq Mujahedeen might leave the country, which is actually already the case, to go to Afghanistan, or which will once again become a hot spot. Given the geostrategic and geopolitical issues at stake, we are not convinced there will be a reduction in violence.

I'd like to hear what you have to say about that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madam Lalonde.

Mr. Gilmore.

[Scott Gilmore]

No, we're not sure, but we have to continue to operate at least with a certain measure of hope.

In reference to Pakistan and the Taliban, there are steps that we can take to improve matters. On the fear that the situation in Iraq could spill over to Afghanistan, I'm frankly not prepared to comment on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Gilmore.

Mr. Sedra, please.

[Mark Sedra]

In terms of Pakistan, there is a lot of scope for more pressure to be placed on Pakistan. Of course, the actor that has the most scope in that regard is the United States. The United States is in the process of selling sophisticated fighter jets to the Pakistanis, and Pakistan is one of the biggest recipients of U.S. aid. Canada is also providing aid to Pakistan. There is a need for western countries whose troops are fighting and dying in the south of the country to use more diplomatic capital in relation to Islamabad.

I would also say that from recent sources I have spoken to, cross-border insurgent attacks on the Pakistani border have actually decreased somewhat in the last couple of months, so maybe that's an indication that Pakistan is starting to respond and to take a more serious line there.

In terms of what many people are calling the “Iraqization” of the Afghan insurgency, it is certainly occurring. When we see the sophisticated IED attacks, such as the attack a couple of weeks back that tragically killed so many Canadians in Kandahar, strategic experts are saying these are tactics that are being imported from Iraq. We are seeing this jihadi pipeline from Afghanistan to Iraq and a sort of cross-fertilization of terrorist tactics. It's a very disturbing phenomenon that certainly we'll have to keep an eye on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Sedra.

We will go to Mr. Khan.

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Sedra, Mr. Gilmore, thanks for being here.

I have heard several of you say that we need to bring more pressure, that we need to do this to Musharraf, to point a finger at him and ask him to do more. But I tend to agree with my colleague, Mr. Patry. What none of you have said so far is what actually can be done. Shall we be making investments in the farther territories and not just in Afghanistan? I agree that the solution to Afghanistan rests largely in Pakistan, but by just saying “do more”, you're not going to achieve anything.

There is a proposal on the table with the Government of Pakistan. I believe even the G-8 might have it and the United States is also looking at it. Perhaps it amounts to $750 million, I am told.

Do you think we need to make investments along the border areas, particularly in the FATA, in North and South Waziristan? Perhaps we're trying to settle the Afghans, we're trying to curb the insurgency. Do you think this would help?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Gilmore.

[Scott Gilmore]

I believe there is a fortunate, or unfortunate, tendency in Canada to overestimate our influence in certain capitals around the world. I mentioned earlier that Afghanstan is the right place for us to be, and that's because in Kabul we actually do carry a big stick. We don't in Islamabad, and our allies that do have already been extraordinarily frank and aggressive behind closed doors with President Musharraf, and we have the results to show for that.

I believe we can't count on being able to change the modus operandi that has worked so well in the northwest frontier province—and in Baluchistan, for Pakistan—and we have to focus on the Afghan side of the border, where we do have influence. There again, I'd like to echo Mr. Sedra's words that we should look at splitting the Taliban, at coming to terms with those who are more moderate, and at approaching the problem from that direction.

On investment, economic growth is the foundation of peace and stability, and investment on both sides of that border would help, where it is possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Gilmore.

Mr. Sedra.

[Mark Sedra]

Thank you for mentioning the U.S. proposal or plan to send $750 million in development assistance. This is precisely what is needed—that some development assistance be provided. This is certainly an area to which Canada could contribute. The recent plans were also introduced by the Afghan government to hold peace jirgas, to bring together people on both sides of the border to perhaps initiate some level of dialogue that's needed. The U.S. has also introduced a plan to provide preferential trade status for goods that are produced in the FATA.

Development, of course, is a key element of this process. It's not just using a hammer. It is necessary also to bring development assistance. There has to be more discussion about how to build linkages across that border, not to fence that border, as the Pakistanis are talking about, not to divide tribes and villages but to build connections across the border.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Sedra. Good point.

Mr. Goldring.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Sedra, you had mentioned at the end of your talk the fact that if Canada were to withdraw or if countries were to withdraw, it would return immediately—and I'm assuming it would return to a chaotic nightmare once again. This seems to be the one consistent and the one thing that we are all relatively assured of. We're talking about the progress that has being made, and we're hearing from many, and it has been very, very encouraging in the progress that we've been making with the number of some five million students in schools, medical facilities, and many other institutions, and having in mind, too, that that's being scheduled over a period up to the year 2010, to have substantial completion on the judicial reform, good governance, and other things. And that's not a guarantee that it will all be done by 2010, but at least it will be a substantial completion towards that.

Given that we're well under way on that, what would your comments be on the overall progress that is being made on it? Do you have any suggestion on things that could be done in addition to what we're doing already? A considerable effort is being done already.